Comment on Wording change and clarification for purchasing Immich · Discussion #11313
paradox2011@lemmy.ml 1 month agoI saw a lot of concern in the original github announcement regarding the use of the term “license.” People felt it gave the team a legal footing to paywall features down the road and offer them only to licensed users, along with a few other concerns based in the legal implication of the term license. That of course runs counter to their statement that no features will be paywalled ever, so I guess there’s still some anxiety over their trustworthiness out there. Understandable given some of the rug pulls that have happened in the open source world over the past year though (i.e Redhat, redis, etc…)
Willdrick@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fair enough, though FUTO already has an anti-rugpull licence AFAIK
paradox2011@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
They do, but I don’t think that would apply to Immich. Immich is under the AGPL, and hasn’t taken on any FUTO licensing. In a QA they did awhile back they said there was no plans to change it as well, so should be AGPL for the long term.
As far as I’ve seen, the only conmection that Immich has with FUTO is the $1M grant and continued development support. I would imagine any sales from these Immich server purchases are now obligated to go to FUTO, but that’s the only connection between the two companies.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
No it doesn’t
There “source first” license is very restrictive and only grants some rights to the users. It doesn’t allow forking and continuing a project. (At least not in a way that isn’t a legal problem)